Latest Newsletter News

SC backs EVMs, rules out revival of paper ballots

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the electronic voting machine (EVM) system of polling and refused a plea to revive paper ballots. “The weakness of the ballot paper system is well known and documented. Keeping in view the vast size of the Indian electorate of nearly 97 crore, the number of candidates who contest the elections, the number of polling booths where voting is held, and the problems faced with ballot papers, we would be undoing the electoral reforms by directing reintroduction of the ballot papers. EVMs offer significant advantages,” the Supreme Court reasoned. EVMs were first used in 1982 in the Assembly constituency of Paravur in Kerala in 50 out of 123 booths.

The court said that “blind distrust” of an institution or a system breeds unwarranted scepticism and impedes progress. “We acknowledge the right of voters to question the working of EVMs, which are but an electronic device that has a direct impact on election results. However, it is also necessary to exercise care and caution when we raise aspersions on the integrity of the electoral process. Repeated and persistent doubts and despair, even without supporting evidence, can have the contrarian impact of creating distrust. This can reduce citizen participation and confidence in elections, essential for a healthy and robust democracy,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed. The judgment of the Bench, also comprising Justice Dipankar Datta, who penned a separate but concurring opinion, coincided with the second phase of Lok Sabha polls.

Polling for the second phase of the Lok Sabha election in 88 constituencies across 13 States was largely peaceful on Friday, with the voter turnout placed at nearly 61%, as per provisional data from the Election Commission (EC).

The court refused the petitioners’ suggestion that paper slips from Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units be handed over to electors to take a leisurely look before inserting them into the ballot boxes. It further dismissed the plea by the petitioners — the Association for Democratic Reforms and Arun Kumar Agarwal — for cross-verification of all EVMs and VVPATs across the country. Now, only 5% of EVM-VVPAT counts are randomly verified in any constituency. “While we acknowledge the fundamental right of voters to ensure their vote is accurately recorded and counted, the same cannot be equated with the right to 100% counting of VVPAT slips or a right to physical access to the VVPAT slips,” Justice Khanna noted. The court refused to strike down Rule 49 MA of the Conduct of Election Rules, which exposes a voter to penal proceedings under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code for submission of false information if his complaint of mismatch between the votes cast and votes counted is not proved. The court suggested that the EC explore the possibility of devising an “electronic machine” to count the VVPAT paper slips.

This direction may have been prompted by an affidavit submitted by the EC during the hearing of the case. “Manual counting of VVPAT slips is cumbersome at every step. The process cannot be expedited or hurried,” the EC had said in its affidavit. The court also suggested that political parties could be identified with unique bar codes, along with their symbols. In a separate direction to the EC, the top court ordered that, from May 1, 2024, Symbol Loading Units should be sealed and secured after the process of loading symbols into VVPATs is over. The court directed that the ‘burnt’ or uploaded memory of the microcontrollers of 5% of EVMs can be checked and verified by a team of engineers from the EVM manufacturers in case of any suspicion of tampering. Such an exercise would be initiated on the basis of a written request from candidates who have come second or third in the vote tally.

In an editorial, The Hindu noted that while it is reassuring that the Supreme Court found nothing to impair faith in EVMs, a larger point to be made is that the apprehensions and suspicions of possible manipulation indicate a level of mistrust in the Election Commission, not seen in the past. “Voter confidence in the system of voting and counting is one thing, but the need for the election watchdog to be seen as impartial is quite another.”